Picking Tuffers on the basis of the Oval 97. Haven't given the team much thought, probably some glaring ommissions. Chose Strauss over Tresco on the basis that Tresco has never tonned up against the Aussies, even though he might have actually scored more runs than Strauss in the series where Strauss did well, will have to look that up

Australia much harder for me, never really paid attention to their players when I was younger so anything I choose would be based on the last 3 series, think I'll give it a miss

Larwood/Trueman was a line ball one, but I wanted to factor in dominating a series as well as over all record. By that rationale in fact, maybe Tyson should be in there somewhere as well. But Larwood's effort in somewhat quelling Bradman is the stuff of legend.

Re Hutton, agreed it's ridiculous but Hobbs and Sutcliffe had clearly better records. Could play one of them at three I suppose, but who comes out?

On England can't see how Headley during that period would be better than Caddick 99-2001 or Jones 2005.

Caddick unfortunately didn't play against Australia between 1999 and May 2001 which was his period of bowling superbly - the only time he really bowled semi-decently against Australia was 1997; Jones' two outstanding innings' in 2005 are no match for Headley's four good games in 1997 and 1998/99.

For Australia hard to put Healy's peak period over Gilchrist & also Gillespie at his best is on par with Hughes, but thats personal preference i guess...

Hughes in 1989, 1990/91 and 1993 was a fair bit better than Gillespie in 2001 and 2002/03. Gillespie, of course, was his usual perennially-injured self in 1997 and 1998/99.

As for Healy, he had three good Ashes (1993, 1994/95 and 1997) to Gilchrist's two (2001 and 2002/03). Thus, I'd have to have him. Though it should be noted that Gilchrist's best >>>> Healy's best and Gilchrist's worst >>>> Healy's worst. But Healy just played far more Ashes cricket than Gilchrist.

On England can't see how Headley during that period would be better than Caddick 99-2001 or Jones 2005

Healdey against Australia was superb. Injury is the only thing which stopped him.

35 wickets @ 24.77 with a SR of 43.3.

Really hard to argue with that tbh.

I've gone with both Headley and S.Jones. But both were better than Caddick and Gough IMO.

Originally Posted by Matt79

Larwood/Trueman was a line ball one, but I wanted to factor in dominating a series as well as over all record. By that rationale in fact, maybe Tyson should be in there somewhere as well. But Larwood's effort in somewhat quelling Bradman is the stuff of legend.

Ja, Larwood did seem to have Bradman in his pocket at times so fair enough. It's been said that Larwood deserved better stats too.

Tyson @ Melbourne on that wicket with the wind behind him wouldn't have been the highlight of the Aussie batsmen's careers, that's for sure! Lol.

Re Hutton, agreed it's ridiculous but Hobbs and Sutcliffe had clearly better records. Could play one of them at three I suppose, but who comes out?

Hutton never played @ 3 during his life at test level, but baring in mind Hobbs-Sutcliffe worked so well as a partnership, it'd be hard to put 1 of those @ 3.

I'm all for having 3 openers as No.1-3 in a line-up and Hutton would be able to do it I'm sure.

You could go:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington/Pietersen

It's definitely tough. I couldn't do an "all things considered XI" because there are too many great players who peaked during the Ashes series.

That 4 would be my top 4 "old boys" XI.

In regards to Barrington vs Pietersen. I'd go for Barrington as it stands.

A RUN average of 54.12 in the Ashes when he was actually a pretty defensive player. He probably should've had 8 or 9 centuries as opposed to 5 but still wasn't bad. Lol

I'm sure KP will play til at least the 2013 Ashes though so not really fair to compare him with Ken atm. I'm hoping KP blows Ken's record out of the water. No-one has got as much **** as Pietersen has in the media that I can remember.

As a right now thing, sure. That's a call I'm making in full consciousness (but admittedly without explicitly stating it) that it anticipating future performances. That said, I'm very confident KP will fulfill that anticipation.

For Hutton, for these exercises, I dislike selecting players out of position. Hutton was an opener, and when there are middle order players of the quality of Hammond, Barrington and Pietersen, not to mention others like Leyland and Gower, to chose from, don't feel the need to try to turn him into a middle order player. Remember as well that I'm basing this only on Ashes performances, not their over all records as players.

Aside from the uselessness of multiple-laugh-smiley-exclusive posts... if there is any sensible response there, what's the reaction to Ramprakash for? He was good in his limited appearances in 1993 and 1997, and excellent in 1998/99 and 2001.

As a right now thing, sure. That's a call I'm making in full consciousness (but admittedly without explicitly stating it) that it anticipating future performances. That said, I'm very confident KP will fulfill that anticipation.

I see. Well, I've said many times that I like to assess players for these purposes only once their careers are over - predicting future performances seems fairly pointless to me TBH. Might as well just wait and see.

For Hutton, for these exercises, I dislike selecting players out of position. Hutton was an opener, and when there are middle order players of the quality of Hammond, Barrington and Pietersen, not to mention others like Leyland and Gower, to chose from, don't feel the need to try to turn him into a middle order player. Remember as well that I'm basing this only on Ashes performances, not their over all records as players.

I don't like selecting players wildly out-of-position either, but there's any number of openers who've had success at three and I see absolutely no reason why Hutton would not perform as well at three as he did at the top.

If it was a question of putting Hutton at five or six that'd be a different matter.